Forbes on Benghazi

[admin]

Questions remain, that's for sure.

Lingering questions about Benghazi

By David Ignatius, Wednesday, October 31, 12:17 AM

The attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi has become a political football in the presidential campaign, with all the grandstanding and misinformation that entails. But Fox News has raised some questions about the attack that deserve a clearer answer from the Obama administration.

Fox’s Jennifer Griffin reported Friday that CIA officers in Benghazi had been told to “stand down” when they wanted to deploy from their base at the annex to repel the attack on the consulate, about a mile away. Fox also reported that the CIA officers requested military support when the annex came under fire later that night but that their request had been denied.

The Benghazi tragedy was amplified by Charles Woods, the father of slain CIA contractor Tyrone Woods. He told Fox’s Sean Hannity that White House officials who didn’t authorize military strikes to save the embattled CIA annex were “cowards” and “are guilty of murdering my son.”

The Fox “stand down” story prompted a strong rebuttal from the CIA: “We can say with confidence that the agency reacted quickly to aid our colleagues during that terrible evening in Benghazi. Moreover, no one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate.”

So what did happen in Benghazi on the night of Sept. 11, when Woods, Ambassador Christopher Stevens and two others Americans were killed? The best way to establish the facts would be a detailed, unclassified timeline of events; officials say they are preparing one, and that it may be released later this week. That’s a must, even in the volatile final week of the campaign. In the meantime, here’s a summary of some of the basic issues that need to be clarified.

First, on the question of whether Woods and others were made to wait when they asked permission to move out immediately to try to rescue those at the consulate. The answer seems to be yes, but not for very long. There was a brief, initial delay — two people said it was about 20 minutes — before Woods was allowed to leave. One official said Woods and at least one other CIA colleague were “in the car revving the engine,” waiting for permission to go. Woods died about six hours later, after he returned to the annex.

The main reason for the delay, several sources said, was that CIA officials were making urgent contact with a Libyan militia, known as the February 17 Brigade, which was the closest thing to an organized security force in Benghazi. The United States depends on local security to protect U.S. diplomatic facilities everywhere, and officials wanted to coordinate any response to the consulate attack. After this delay, Woods and his colleague proceeded to the consulate.

Here’s my question: Was it wise to depend on a Libyan militia that clearly wasn’t up to the job? Could it have made a difference for those under attack at the consulate if Woods had moved out as soon as he was, in one official’s words, “saddled and ready”?

Second, why didn’t the United States send armed drones or other air assistance to Benghazi immediately? This one is harder to answer. The CIA did dispatch a quick-reaction force that night from Tripoli, with about eight people, but it had trouble at first reaching the compound. One of its members, Glen Doherty, died along with Woods when a mortar hit the roof of the annex about 4 a.m.

What more could have been done? A Joint Special Operations Command team was moved that night to Sigonella air base in Sicily, for quick deployment to Benghazi or any of the other U.S. facilities in danger that night across North Africa. Armed drones could also have been sent. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta summarized last Thursday the administration’s decision to opt for caution: “You don’t deploy forces into harm’s way without knowing what’s going on.”

Looking back, it may indeed have been wise not to bomb targets in Libya that night. Given the uproar in the Arab world, this might have been the equivalent of pouring gasoline on a burning fire. But the anguish of Woods’s father is understandable: His son’s life might have been saved by a more aggressive response. The Obama administration needs to level with the country about why it made its decisions.

A final, obvious point: The “fog of battle” that night was dense not just in Benghazi but in Cairo, Tunis and elsewhere. U.S. officials needed better intelligence. That’s the toughest problem to address, but the most important.

[Libtardius Maximus]

This is the issue that could swing the election. I expect to hear more about this before election day. Regardless of who is right this issue needs to be resolved prior to votes being cast. The American people deserve as much.

[ArtM72]

Amb. Stevens own father Rejected the idea to politicize His son's death

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...ghazi.html.

You and FOXNews Continue to be highly Selective in the Pieces of the story You want people to believe. Much like the willful ignorance Of operation wide receiver.

[ArtM72]

Maybe this is something a little more important. Look at the link below and consider what Mitt Romney said in his convention speech: "President Obama promised to begin to slow the rise of the oceans and heal the planet. MY promise...is to help you and your family."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...ead_module

Some people have little if any sense of proportion.

[Tree]

Maybe this is something a little more important. Look at the link below and consider what Mitt Romney said in his convention speech: "President Obama promised to begin to slow the rise of the oceans and heal the planet. MY promise...is to help you and your family." http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...ead_module Some people have little if any sense of proportion.

Hey Art,

Would your eyes open and your mind change if:

the drone sending live video feed to the WH Situation Room was armed?

there was an understanding by SEAL Woods of aerial support from the drone above to immediately take out the mortar encampment once he gave way hs position by lasering?

there are audio tapes of SEAL Woods pleading for the expected aerial support which are falling of deaf ears in WH Situation Room?

there are e-mails from WH explicitly ordering a counter-terrorism team mobilizing Marines, a C-130 and Jet Fighters to defend and rescue the Americans in Benghazi that were under-attack, explicitly ordering that counter-terrorism team to stand-down?

Lib is right, that the American people deserve to know the truth and that more will be coming out prior to the election.  The above 4 stories were brewing then Hurricane Sandy took center stage.  Now that the storm is passed and clean up efforts begin expect to hear more on the above.  Beleive me Art, I find no pleasure in knowing either an American President is either so devious and chose politics resulting in 4 deaths  and a massive cover-up or he and his appointees are unbeleivably incompetent.  That is not what we bargain for in an American President.

<edit>

Art, All would agree with Ambassador Steven's father.  However, The Fox article you posted above is 2 weeks old.  That's before it was known that there was live video feed to the WH Situation Room, that former SEALS were ordered to stand-down rather than rescue Mr. Steven's son, that was before all the e-mails were released which proved they knew in the WH that the attack was not a protest gone wild, but they knew beyond doubt immediately that the attack was organized and terrorist in nature.   Maybe if they would interview Mr. Stevens again he may just be as outraged as Ty Wood's father is.  As the facts change, so must the truth.  You have much keeping up to do Art.  Quick up.

[ArtM72]

Tree -

If these events that you suggest were confirmed then, yes, they would inform my opinion accordingly. There have been so many "stories" I've seen brewed the only rational opinion that can be had, in my mind, is to wait for the results of the various investigation to come out. But then I am not hell bent on looking for or making up something, anything to undermine the President, his work and his re-election.

President is speaking with Governor Christie right now. That is a lot more important issue to be reported at this time. If it wasn't Sandy, the outright lies of the Romney campaign, the most recent one concerning Jeep, should be the story. A man who will say anything to get elected is not worthy of the office. Your view of Obama seems to continue to be based purely on the speculation of his adversaries, adversaries that far more often than not are shown to be wrong in their assessments.

[admin]

Personally, I couldn't really understand why Romney hasn't made anything of the Benghazi fiasco, here is one (but by all means, not necessarily the) explanation:

Why Romney’s Not Talking About Benghazi Anymore

By Michael CrowleyNov. 02, 2012

Follow @TIMEPolitics

 

In conservative circles, the closing weeks of the election have involved a full-blown scandal: namely, that the Obama White House has covered up what really happened during the lethal September 11 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi. The Obama administration first failed to adequately protect U.S. personnel in Benghazi, this narrative holds; didn’t respond forcefully enough to save the four Americans who were killed; tried to deny that a coordinated attack occurred at all; and has concealed what the president and his top advisers knew about all this and when. “The Benghazi scandal,” is how Fox News host Bret Baier referred to the story Thursday.

And yet Mitt Romney wants nothing to do with it. In the second presidential debate, Romney treated Benghazi as the most important national security of the moment. But Romney sidestepped the issue in the final debate and, as far as I’m aware, hasn’t raised it since. It’s true that the topic blew up in Romney’s face in that second debate. But Romney’s sudden and complete abandonment of the topic has still been something of a mystery.

Now the story has taken a new twist, as Massimo Calabresi explains. It seems as through the most important actor during the attack may not have been the president, but CIA director David Petraeus. That leaves the storyline more confused than ever. Petraeus, the reputed savior of Iraq, is a hero to many of the same conservatives who have been driving the Benghazi story in an effort to burn the president. Now it seems possible that their ire could burn the general more than the president. Although Friday’s reports indicate that the CIA responded fast and aggressively as the attack unfolded, it also appears that the agency could have been more vigilant about security at the site in advance. It also seems possible that Mitt Romney fell silent on this issue because he came to understand that Petraeus is at least as politically exposed as Obama. (Bear in mind that Romney was recently granted classified national security briefings, as is the custom for major-party nominees.)

To be sure, Obama’s role in all this does remain frustratingly opaque. The White House hasn’t said whether the President was presented with any decision options during the attack, like whether to order drone or fighter jet strikes in the area (although it’s far from clear that either would have been practical in a confused situation). It’s still not quite clear why the Administration blamed that infamous anti-Islamic video for the attack as long as it did, even as contradictory reports added up. Hillary Clinton has taken responsibility in a broad sense for inadequate security at the consulate, but we still don’t know just how involved she was in that debate. And finally, if Fox News is right that special forces based in Italy were “told to wait,” rather than deploy to the scene, we still don’t know who gave that order. (Note that former Pentagon big Paul Wolfowitz, who is no Obama defender, claims that a military team in Europe was in fact mobilized immediately but could not have reached Benghazi in time to save lives.)

These are all frustrating questions. And while an official investigation is still ongoing, the White House could be offering more detail without spilling secrets. “The Obama administration needs to level with the country about why it made its decisions,” the Washington Post‘s fair-minded national security columnist–and frequent Obama defender–David Ignatius wrote this week. But it’s far from clear that the full backstory here amounts to the damning indictment of Barack Obama that some Republicans are intimating. Which may be why Mitt Romney doesn’t bother to mention it anymore.